The Hillary supporters amongst whom I live are thrilled to pieces with the report that 50 GOP “national security experts” have signed a letter calling Trump potentially “the most reckless president in American history.” I certainly understand their concern about putting reckless people in charge of America’s national security. Just think of all the damage a reckless person could do:

A reckless president could deny that radical Islamists are waging war against us and, as part and parcel of that denial, scrub Islam from all national security guidelines. Oh, wait! Both Hillary, during her State tenure, and Obama have already done that.

A reckless president could begin a war without Congress’s approval to kill a national leader who is no longer a threat to America’s interests, destabilizing the region so severely that it becomes a haven for the worst kind of anti-Western terrorists. Oh, silly me! Hillary and Obama have already done that too.

A reckless president could refuse to give proper security to consulates in dangerous regions and then, when danger appears, refuse to send aid and lie about everything after the fact, ending up with the selfish insistence that, once people are dead, it no longer makes a difference what she did. I’m talking to you, Hillary.

A reckless president could withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq without leaving a force behind to secure a hard-won victory, allowing Iraq to become completely destabilized and turning it into another haven for the worst kind of anti-Western terrorists. Oh! Don’t tell me — Obama and Hillary already did that, didn’t they?

A reckless president could invite tens of thousands of people from a Middle Eastern region rife with terrorism to enter the United States, despite acknowledging that America currently has no way to vet them for terrorist ties nor is it making any effort to fulfill the core government obligation of protecting against infectious diseases. I did it again, didn’t I? Obama already did that, didn’t he? And Hillary promises to continue that course of action, right?

A reckless president could stop border enforcement, allowing hundreds of thousands of people into America in violation of American law, and without concerns for the economic security of Americans already living here or, again, without regard to government’s basic obligation to guard against infectious disease. You’re going to tell me again that Hillary and Obama have already done this, aren’t you? And I bet you’ll say that Hillary has promised that this will be her policy too. . . .

A reckless president could drive a pro-American leader out of power in Egypt, aid in installing a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader, try to prevent the ouster of that Muslim Brotherhood leader, and then refuse to give aid to the secular, pro-American leader who is finally in charge (and who is beginning to resent America). Yeah, I know. Obama and Hillary already did that.

A reckless president could watch a Syrian leader wage war against his own people and announce that he’s drawing a “red line” should the leader use poison gas on those people — and, then, when the leader uses that gas on those people, that reckless president could say “never mind,” utterly destroying American credibility. This is getting boring, because of course Obama, with aid from Hillary’s State Department, already did this.

A reckless president, faced with his inability to stand up against a genocidal Syrian leader, could open the door to Russian control of the Middle East, something America has been preventing since the Cold War began. Yup, that would be Obama and Hillary again.

A reckless president could turn his back on Israel, which is America’s staunchest ally, the only liberal democracy in the whole Middle East, and the leading edge of the sword in the worldwide battle against radical Islam. And yes, Obama and Hillary did precisely that.

A reckless president could sit back and do nothing as the Russian bear invades Crimea, destabilizing the European balance of power and watching the destruction of a sovereign nation. You go, Obama!

A reckless president could end the boycott of Cuba, without asking for a single thing in exchange, such as the release of dissidents or a softening of that nation’s totalitarian laws against speech. And that would be Obama. . . .

A reckless president could bypass Congress and enter into an agreement with Iran that pours billions into the Iranian economy without any quid pro quos from Iran, such as tabling its nuclear program, ending its promotion of worldwide Islamic terrorism, or stopping its existential threats against America and Israel. Gee, Obama did that, didn’t he?

A reckless president would refrain from interfering directly in a sovereign nation’s political affairs by telling that nation that it would be punished if it voted to leave the EU. That was Obama too.

A reckless president would look at the unstable world he’s created and use it as an opportunity to turn America’s military into a social justice and climate change experiment. (And let me just ask once again why the hell American taxpayers are going to be saddled with the cost of paying for people who don’t like their gender to have expensive surgery in a marginally effective effort to align body appearance with mental needs?) No more verbal games. We all know that Obama is responsible for this monstrous abdication of the president’s duty to protect America with a strong constitutional army.

Lastly to hide her pay-for-play activities, a reckless president could deliberately bypass the State Department’s protected communication channels, set up an unsecured server in her bathroom, and for four years run all State Department communications, including numerous top-secret communications, through the unsecured server that we know has been hacked repeatedly, exposing American secrets, putting confidential sources at risk, and exposing the president to blackmail. Given this cynical, selfish, stupid conduct, is Hillary really a no-risk presidential candidate?

That’s what a reckless president might do. And what has Trump done so far to call this opprobrium down on his head?

He’s said that radical Islamists have declared war against us and we need to fight back.

He’s said that we need to have measures in place to protect against Islamists entering the country before we simply open the doors to Muslims from regions rife with Islamists.

He’s said that America needs to secure her Southern border because we’re bringing in lawlessness from Latin America, as well as job stealers affecting American jobs.

He’s said that NATO needs to step up its game so that America isn’t constantly responsible for messes Europe brings on itself.

He’s said that America should side wholeheartedly with Israel, a long-time ally and the only true liberal democracy in a totalitarian region.

He’s said that America has to be tougher about negotiating trade agreements.

He’s asked what the rules and limitations are on the American president’s control over the infamous “red nuclear button.”

Moreover, if you look at Trump’s business career, he’s never been reckless. Whether or not you agree with his business practices, Trump is a calculating, cautious man who carefully insulates himself against risk.

As always, I’m not a huge Trump fan, but I’m disgusted by the attacks being leveled against him in the media and by RINOs who are hugely invested in the status quo, and who have no stomach for genuine conservative ideas. As many have commented, what we’re seeing here is a massive realignment in America, one that pits those who see themselves as pan-national intellectual elites against those who see themselves as Americans bound together by a constitution.

UPDATE: Readers have added a fiew more things that a reckless president might do and that, in fact, Obama did do, often with Hillary’s connivance, participation, oversight, or failure to perform her job:

A reckless president might turn a blind eye or help rogue states build their own nuclear weapons and ICBM capabilities, as Obama and Secretary of State Clinton did.

A reckless president might turn critical nuclear, computer, missile reentry and stealth technologies over to our enemies, as the potential First Man, Bill Clinton did, undermining our own efforts to build anti-missile defenses (with Obama lending a hand on that front).

A reckless president might dismantle our own nuclear capabilities, something Obama did both with and without Hillary’s help.

A reckless president might give the biggest sponsor of terror in the world $400,000,000 in small unmarked bills to release hostages, which Obama did, in violation of American law and policy.

Eight years ago I wrote that Obama’s world view was based on fantasy and that he would make bad political and ideological decisions regarding our national security. As bad as I knew Obama would be, I did not foresee the level of catastrophe that he would reach. You lay much of it out well, Ms. BWR.

To the extent that Trump has garnered attention as reckless, it is, as you point out, not because of his policy proposals, all of which are within acceptable norms. It is because he refuses to abide by the conventions of a normal political candidate in what he says. Consequently, the press is painting the picture of him as the real life embodiment of Gen. Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove. Those who are offended by Trump’s demagoguery — and he is a demagogue — or who have a vested interest in either the status quo or more statitism either can’t see beyond the superficiality of their complaints or are being deeply cyinical in their attacks.

Jim O’Neil

Great post Book!

“….what has Trump done so far to call this opprobrium down on his head?”

Well, all of the above of course but most horrendously and unforgivably, also not only has he pointed out that the emperor has no clothes but also the the GOP has no gonads.

Danny Lemieux

It’s funny that a current Democrat-Progressive meme is that Trump would pose a global danger by virtue of having access to the nuclear codes (as if one man possesses the power and authority to launch our missiles). However, there are other ways to launch nuclear armageddon and that is by turning a blind eye or helping rogue states to build their own nuclear weapons and ICBM capabilities (Obama and Secr. of State Clinton), turning over critical nuclear, computer, missile reentry and stealth technologies over to our enemies (the Clinton Administration), undermining our own efforts to build anti-missile defenses (Obama and the Clintons) and simultaneously dismantling our own nuclear capabilities (Obama). It isn’t Trump that poses a danger to world peace, it’s the Obama and Clinton people that threaten to shred the world to pieces.

Morell: We need to make the Iranians pay the price in Syria; we need to make the Russians pay the price.

Rose: We make them pay the price by killing Russians and killing Iranians?

Morell: Yes. Covertly. You don’t tell the world about it. You don’t stand at the Pentagon and say we did this. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran. I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad. I want to go after his presidential car. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. I want to destroy his presidential aircraft. I want to destroy his presidential helicopters. I want to make him think we are coming after him….

…. Last Friday, former deputy and acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell became the latest neocon to join the Hillary bandwagon with a NYT Op-Ed titled “I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” in which he not only praised Hillary but slammed Donald Trump, as follows: “Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security…. In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

What Morell, who sought to portray himself as bipartisan, did not say, is that he was an active participant in painting the Benghazi attacks as caused by YouTube video. When Hillary Clinton says ‘best information provided by the intelligence community” she is referring to her man in the CIA: Michael Morell was the CIA official who crafted the “talking points” on Benghazi with the Obama White House according to his own testimony in 2014 to Congress. In emails later uncovered by Congress, CIA Director David Petraeus called the resulting talking-point language ‘useless.’
….

I think people are failing to understand just what a disaster Clinton would be in large part because she’s a familiar figure, she’s been around, she talks with the kind of phrases that people have come to expect of national-level politicians.

Just as people circa 2008 failed to understand how much trouble the mortgage market was in because those who were saying it was all OK were serious-looking individuals who had big titles, wore nice suits, had a lot of money, and were on TV a lot.

G6loq

David Foster

Sadly funny. Thanks!

xpatinafrica

I was only able to get through 2/3 of the book by former CIA and other intelligence agency’s head Michael Hayden’s book—Playing To The Edge… I don’t want to denigrate his patriotism or his good intentions. But he was ineffective, in my opinion, in stopping the current morass of Political correctness in gov’t, while allowing PC crap to deter an all out assault on the islamofascists that wage war against us. He was a kiss ass, in my opinion, and retired when it was a good idea to escape the calamity that was certainly going to follow.

xpatinafrica

Bookworm—publish the 50 names here. It’s at your hands and not all of ours.

Book,
Your description of Trump’s foreign policy proposals is very toned down from the kinds of comments Trump has made. I hate Hillary, but I am scared by Trump because his off the cuff, uninformed comments scare and turn off our allies. For instance, Estonia spends a lot on defense, but Trump doesn’t know this. He sounded as though he was willing to give it to Putin. The Asian countries are slowly building mutual trust to resist China, but Trump seems to want them to go it independently with their own nuclear arsenals. Sure we have to deal with illegal immigrants, but why did he attack Romney for suggesting policies that would get them to self deport? As to radical Muslim terrorists, why can’t he take advantage of recent events like the terrorist strike against lawyers in Pakistan to get other Muslims to rethink their support for radicals?

The problem with Trump is not his sanitized proposals, it is the fact that he undermines them himself. He seems unwilling to learn or listen to others. The fifty people who signed this letter are upset by Trump’s unwillingness to learn and his unawareness of the damage his comments make. Personally, I don’t think he even realizes that his comments are cherry picked across the world by our enemies to build hatred against us. Has Trump ever read books like Bloodlands or The Looming Tower? You simply can’t conduct foreign affairs based on National Enquirer headlines. When will Trump learn this? Will he ever if people don’t stop kissing his a**? I don’t see these non-endorsements as pro-Hillary. I see them as an attempt to wake up Trump.

BTW, does he even realize that none of his SCOTUS candidates will be confirmed if his stupid comments endanger more Senate seats? He won’t be able to do much if he keeps on weakening our side.

rbj

Of the 17 GOP candidates, Trump wasn’t in the top 1000 for me. But given the utter failure of foreign policy of the past 7+ years, as long as he has good advisors around him, he can’t be any worse. Libya alone is disqualifying for Hillary. Yes Gaddaffi was a nasty piece of work, but he was playing in his own sandbox at the time and gave up his WMDs, which we should want from nasty dictators. Give up your WMD programs, don’t export terrorism or try to take over other countries and we’ll leave you alone.

Plus there’s Citizens United and Heller and the Ruth Bader Ginsburg problem. Hillary would appoint more RBGs to overturn those rulings, destroying the principle of stare decisis and explicitly making the Judicial branch political. Trump is the only one in the position to stop Hillary. Am I happy about it? No, but you don’t get the world you want.